The Court of Appeal has made a number of important decisions in 2015 in the field of personal injury. As the year draws to a close, Ella Davis and I review some of the most important of them for the PI practitioner. They cover psychiatric damage, causation, quantum, the Athens Convention, jurisdiction, duties of care, vicarious liability and non-delegable duties...
Psychiatric Damage
Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne [2015] EWCA Civ 588 was a case of a claimant claiming damages for psychiatric injury consequent on seeing the condition of a loved one brought about by the negligence of a defendant. Of the four requirements for recovery, the decision focused on whether C’s illness had been “induced by a sudden shocking event.” Three issues were at the heart of the case: (1) whether C had suffered a recognised psychiatric illness, (2) Whether there had been “an event” and (3) how “shocking” the event must be. Edward Bishop QC provided a masterly analysis of this and other decisions in the 1 Chancery Lane October 2015 PI Briefing.
In brief, C’s wife became extremely unwell due to the negligence of D. C claimed he had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the shock of seeing his wife’s sudden deterioration and appearance in hospital. The CA confirmed that courts should pay close attention to diagnostic criteria, that whether an event is ‘horrifying’ must be judged by objective standards and by reference to persons of ordinary susceptibility and that for an event in a hospital to be ‘shocking’ required something “wholly exceptional in some way so as to shock or horrify”. It also considered what was meant by an ‘event’ and ‘sudden’ finding that C had not been exposed to one event (“a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end”) but a series of events with no “inexorable progression”. What had happened was not sudden, it had not caused an “assault upon the senses” but at each stage C had been conditioned for what he was about to perceive.
Causation
Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 119 was considered on this blog in a posting by Ella Davis “Quantity not Quality”. She rightly observes that the decision brings clarity to the law rather than any new departure. The CA considered causation in a case where a patient was a paraplegic requiring a care regime (due to non-negligent causes) but due to the negligence of D causing pressure sores, her care needs were increased. The question was whether D caused all her care needs or whether D was only liable for those needs less the needs which she would have had but for the negligence. The key issue was whether the pre-existing care needs were qualitatively different from those caused by the negligence or whether they were merely quantitatively different. The CA found they were only quantitatively different and therefore D was only liable for C’s increased care requirements. In future parties will doubtless pay careful attention to whether losses are qualitatively or quantitatively different as a result of negligence adding to a pre-existing condition.
Causation and the Burden of Proof
Graves v Brouwer [2015] EWCA Civ 595 concerned a house fire of unknown cause. Mr Brouwer set fire to a small bundle of papers in the passageway next to his house. Very shortly afterward the roof of his neighbour’s house caught fire. The experts agreed that the chances of an ember from the papers travelling to the eaves of the building and starting a fire were very low but, absent arson, were unable to come up with a more probable cause. The judge rejected arson as fanciful and found that, while the flying ember theory was scientifically improbable, the Claimant succeeded on causation.
The Court of Appeal overturned her decision saying she had failed to ask herself the ultimate question whether the flying ember theory was more likely or not to be true. The fact that no other possible causes were identified, in large part because there was no investigation at the time, did not make it more probable than not the fire was caused by a flying ember. As Roderick Abbot observed in his blog post “Sherlock Holmes in the Court of Appeal”, the exercise is not one of identifying the least unlikely cause. The Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof and that was all the judge was required to find.
Quantum
Billett v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 773 concerns how courts should assess damages for loss of future earning capacity in circumstances where the claimant suffers from a minor disability, is in steady employment and is earning at his full pre-accident rate. Should the court follow the traditional Smith v Manchester approach or should the court use the Ogden Tables, suitably adjusted?
C suffered from a minor Non Freezing Cold Injury (“NFCI”) which had a substantial impact on his day to day life in cold weather. The condition had less impact on his work as a lorry driver than it had on his leisure activities. The judge found that his loss of future earning capacity should be assessed by using Ogden Tables A and B, suitably adjusted, not by applying Smith v Manchester.
The CA upheld his decision that C had a minor disability clarifying that where a court considers whether an injury substantially limits a claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, the enquiry should be directed at what the claimant cannot do rather than what he can do. The CA overturned the judge’s decision to use the Ogden Tables: unadjusted they produced an unrealistic future loss; adjustment however was a matter of broad judgment which was no more scientific than the approach in Smith v Manchester. The judgment still leaves open the question when a disability becomes serious enough to engage the approach in Ogden Tables A and B and when and how those might be adjusted. However as Andrew Spencer said in his blog on this case (Loss of future earnings and disability) the case is strong authority for retaining the Smith v Manchester approach in cases of minor disabilities with little effect on the claimant’s chosen career.
Athens Convention
In South West Strategic Health Authority v Bay Island Voyages [2015] EWCA Civ 708 the CA considered two issues relating to the Athens Convention (which governs personal injury to passengers at sea). The first was whether it extended to claims against carriers for contribution to liability of others and the second was the effect of the time bar prescribed by the convention.
Dr Feest was injured in a boating accident in the Bristol Channel. The carrier was Bay Island Voyages (“BIV”). Dr Feest’s first firm of solicitors failed to issue against BIV within the 2 year time limit under the Convention and so she sued her employer SWSHA on the basis the accident occurred in the course of her employment. SWSHA joined BIV who successfully applied to have the Part 20 proceedings struck out. The Court of Appeal found that the provisions of the convention were not directly applicable to SWSHA’s claim against BIV. It also found that the time bar in Article 16 did not extinguish the cause of action but only barred the remedy: this was critical for SWSHA’s contribution claim as, if the limitation provisions had extinguished the right to bring the claim, under the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 SWSHA could only have brought a claim within 2 years of the accident. Ian Miller, who represented SWSHA with John Ross QC, blogged on the case: “Contribution, limitation and the Athens Convention.”
Jurisdiction
Brownlie v Four Seasons Holding Incorporated [2015] EWCA Civ 665 involved the application of the Canada Trust gloss and a novel question about where damage in a tort claim was sustained.
C bought an off package excursion in Egypt in which her husband was killed and she was injured. She booked the excursion by making a telephone call in England to the concierge at the hotel in Egypt. After the accident she brought proceedings in the High Court in contract and tort. She brought three tort claims (1) in respect of her own injuries; (2) as a dependant of her husband and (3) for the loss suffered by her husband’s estate.
On appeal the court of appeal, applying the Canada Trust gloss – which is well set out and explained in the judgment - found that there was a good arguable case as to the identity of the defendant and as to whether the contract was made in England. This was not novel point of law: it was merely a finding that it was likely that C had called the concierge with proposals and he had accepted them. Given a contract for an excursion is made at the place where the words of acceptance are received, the contract was made in England.
The novel point of law considered by the CA was the question of whether damage was sustained within the jurisdiction for the purposes of C’s claim in tort. This is the requirement of paragraph 3.1(9)(a) of the Practice Direction 6B (the tort gateway) for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The CA held the jurisdictional gateway should be interpreted consistently with Rome II and therefore the country in which the damage occurs should be the country where the injury was sustained regardless of the country in which the indirect consequences could occur. Thus the Claimant’s personal claim and the claim on behalf of the estate should be brought in Egypt. However, the dependency claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 was not properly described as a consequential loss it was an independent loss and so the Claimant had shown a good arguable case that English law should apply to this claim.
Matthew Chapman who appeared in this case with John Ross QC has blogged on it here.
Duties of care and mental impairment
In Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673 the Defendant (“V”) was a paranoid schizophrenic who poured petrol over himself and ignited it, injuring his nephew the Claimant. V’s mental state was agreed to be grossly impaired. On a spectrum between completely healthy volition and absent volition he was at least 95 per cent impaired and probably 100 per cent absent volition.
A number of helpful points arise from the three lengthy judgments given. First, the court rejected any need to differentiate between mental and physical impairment. Second, a person with a mental impairment owes a duty of care. Third, the standard of care should not be adjusted to take account of the personal characteristics of the Defendant, it is purely objective. Fourth, only Defendants whose attack or medical incapacity has the effect of entirely eliminating any fault or responsibility for the injury can be said not to have broken their duty of care.
The Claimant’s appeal was therefore allowed. Interestingly the court noted that insanity is a defence in crime because criminal law is punitive whereas the function of the law of tort is to compensate victims.
Vicarious Liability
In Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 47 the court had to determine whether an employer was vicariously liable for the acts of an employee who sprayed a co-worker’s overalls with thinning agent and then set them alight causing him considerable injury.
Having looked at the Canadian authorities in sex abuse cases, the court considered that the starting point was to examine whether there was a close connection between the creation or enhancement of a risk by the employer and the wrong that accrues therefrom. In this case the employers created a risk in requiring their employees to work with paint thinners but there was not a sufficiently close connection between that risk and the wrongful act. The wrongful act did not further the employer’s aims and it was not related to friction, confrontation or intimacy inherent in the employer's enterprise.
Where the employment does not require the exercise of force and there is no inherent friction, intentional conduct in the workplace, whether horseplay or more serious acts, will not normally give rise to vicarious liability.
Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duties
The Court of Appeal in NA v Nottingham County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 1139 held that a local authority was not vicariously liable for the abuse of a child by the foster carers with which it placed her, nor did it owe her a non-delegable duty to protect her from harm.
The relationship between the local authority and the foster carers was not sufficiently akin to one of employment to give rise to vicarious liability.
On the issue of a non-delegable duty all three members of the court of appeal gave different reasons summarised in our November 2015 PI Briefing. In brief, Tomlinson LJ held that the local authority had discharged rather than delegated its duty in placing the child with foster carers. Burnett LJ held that what the Claimant sought to do was to expand the common law imposing a strict duty on local authorities on the basis that foster parents were not always able to satisfy a claim. Black LJ held that it would not be fair just and reasonable to apply such a duty; in fact it would be unreasonably burdensome and potentially harmful if it led to over cautious practice.

In South West Strategic Health Authority v Bay Island Voyages [2015] EWCA Civ 708 the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the Athens Convention and the nature of the time-bar in Article 16. In coming to its decision, the Court also considered sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Carriage by Air Act 1961.
In the main action, Dr Feest claims damages for personal injury arising out of an accident which occurred whilst she was a passenger on board The Celtic Pioneer in the Bristol Channel. Her original solicitors missed the two-year time limit for bringing claims under the Athens Convention against the carrier ('BIV'). She issued proceedings against her employer ('SWSHA') one day before the expiry of the three-year time limit under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. SWSHA brought a claim for contribution against BIV which was struck out by the district judge. His order was upheld on appeal.
The first issue for the Court of Appeal was whether claims for contribution are encompassed by Article 14 of the Convention which states “no action for damages for the …personal injury to a passenger… shall be brought against a carrier…otherwise than in accordance with this Convention.” On appeal, HHJ Havelock-Allan QC held that Article 14 encompassed contribution claims ([2014] EWHC 177 QB). The Court of Appeal disagreed. The Athens Convention only claims to unify ‘certain rules relating to the carriage by sea of passengers and their luggage’. It is not a complete code and does not encompass contribution claims which are autonomous and derive from the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. In reaching this conclusion the Court looked at Australian, US and Canadian cases on the equivalent provisions under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.
The Court of Appeal then considered the nature of the time-bar under Article 16. The importance of this is that SWSHA would not have had a claim for contribution against BIV under the Contribution Act if the effect of Article 16 was to extinguish the cause of action rather than bar the remedy. The Court found that the effect of the words of Article 16 in the light of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v Larnell (Insurances) Limited (in liquidation) [2006] QB 808 (which considered the similarly-worded section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980) was to bar the remedy – unless there was an international consensus upon the understanding of the provision. The Court looked at the French text and concluded that the natural meaning of the French words was to bar the remedy. This understanding was also consistent with language (‘Verjaehrungsfrist’) used in the German Commercial Code. Accordingly Article 16 operated to bar the remedy and not extinguish the cause of action and therefore SWSHA’s contribution claim survived.
In reaching their conclusion on Articles 14 and 16 the Court of Appeal also looked at section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Carriage by Air Act 1961 which incorporates the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions into UK law. Of note is its comment that section 5(1) provides a time limit for actions against carrier’s servants or agents, which actions are not themselves within the scope of the Warsaw Convention.
John Ross QC and Ian Miller of 1 Chancery Lane acted for the successful appellant.

There is a phrase in Northern Ireland, where I am from: “as clear as muck”, which is what comes to mind when attempting to fathom the meaning of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exception to compensation under the Denied Boarding Regulations (Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004). Reading the Court of Appeal’s decision in Jet2.com Limited v Huzar (‘Huzar’, [2014] EWCA Civ 791), it is clear that I am in good company.
Whilst this appeal concerns fixed compensation for flight delay under the Regulations rather than personal injury it is of interest to travel law practitioners whose work encompasses both specialisms (as well as the numerous other international conventions engaged when holiday makers have accidents abroad).
Article 5(3) provides:
An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
Rather unhelpfully there is no definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in the Regulations. The scope of the exception was analysed by the CJEU in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia–Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (C-597/07, [2009] Bus LR 1016 ‘Wallentin-Hermann’). Insofar as technical problems are relied upon as exceptional circumstances, the European Court said that they must satisfy a two-fold test:
1. The nature or origin of the event or events which cause the technical problem must not be inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the carrier (limb 1); and
2. It should be beyond its actual control (limb 2).
The Court of Appeal mirrored the sentiments of many when it said it found it difficult to discern how the two limbs interrelate. The Appellant summarised the composite test as follows: "events by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier because they are beyond its actual control." The Appellant’s test therefore emphasised control.
In contrast, the Respondent contended that the two limbs can be summarised as: "events by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and therefore are beyond its actual control." Thereby focusing on the notion of what is inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier's activities.
The Court found that, focusing on the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, technical problems are not out of the ordinary (the words used in McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd Case C-12/11, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 735) and therefore they do not satisfy the first limb as they are all inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier's activity (at [36]). If the Court needed to consider the two limbs together, it adopted the Respondent's formulation (at [47]).
This decision appears to have closed the door on extraordinary circumstances defences raising purely technical difficulties.

The Athens Convention has long been a trap for the unwary claimant who either doesn’t appreciate that accidents at sea are governed by the Convention or that there is currently a 2 year limitation period. Most of the reported cases on the Convention deal with the consequences of one or both of these mistakes. However the judgment in the case of Feest v South West Strategic Health Authority [2014] EWHC 177 (QB) (handed down today) now poses a trap for defendants wanting to bring contribution proceedings.
Dr Feest was injured as a passenger on a 9 metre RIB (rigid inflatable boat) in the Bristol Channel. She was on secondment from the Health Authority and on a corporate team building exercise being run by Bay Island Voyages when she fractured her spine. Dr Feest’s claim against the Health Authority (as her employer) was issued just before expiry of the 3 year time limit. The Health Authority brought a Part 20 claim against Bay Island Voyages. This was struck out by a district judge on the grounds that the time limit under the Convention is 2 years.
The Health Authority appealed. The appeal hinged on the distinction between a cause of action being time barred and a cause of action being extinguished. In common law jurisdictions for the most part when time expires, it acts as a bar to the remedy. In civil jurisdictions it said to extinguish the cause of action altogether. The significance of this is that a right of contribution under the Contribution Act is only available where the cause of action has not been extinguished. Hence the appeal was concerned with whether the limitation period under Article 16 of the Convention barred the remedy or whether it extinguished the right to sue.
HHJ Havelock-Allan QC found on appeal that, although Article 16 uses the language of an action being ‘time-barred’ after a period of 2 years, it extinguished the cause of action. Albeit that the Convention has been incorporated into domestic law and modified for domestic voyages, it must be ‘construed on broad principles of general acceptation’. The judge found that if he was ignorant of the English rules he would interpret Article 16 as extinguishing the right to sue.
Interestingly the Montreal Convention actually uses the words ‘the right to damages shall be extinguished’ but the Carriage by Air Act 1961 actually includes a saving provision for contribution proceedings. The Merchant Shipping Act 1996 has no equivalent – arguably because the legislators interpreted the Athens Convention as a time-bar. Either way, in the unlikely event that a Claimant’s claim is issued within 2 years of an accident, Defendants will need to act swiftly to bring contribution claims within the same 2 year time period.
(The author, Ian Miller, was counsel for the Health Authority and was led by John Ross QC)

The Athens Convention is notorious for catching out PI practitioners with its current two year limitation period* for accidents at sea. Indeed the few reported cases on it are mainly concerned with whether it is possible to extend time (Higham v Stena) or whether a cause of action exists outside the Convention (Norfolk v My Travel) – both resulted from a failure to issue in time.
Judgment is shortly to be handed down in a case which may make life even more complicated for the personal injury practitioner. The issue is whether Article 16 of the Athens Convention extinguishes the cause of action or whether it bars the remedy. This fine distinction rarely troubles most personal injury practitioners but it has historically been a feature of our, and other, common law jurisdictions. In the UK we have, with exceptions, a system of limitation which stops a litigant accessing a remedy on the expiry of a period of time. Exceptions include claims relating to land and defective products. Other jurisdictions have a system of prescription which means that when time expires, the cause of action is extinguished.
Why does this matter? Because under section 1(3) of the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978 a party may claim a contribution from another tortfeasor who is liable for the same damage, except where the cause of action against that other tortfeasor has been extinguished. Where that is the case the contribution claim cannot proceed after the expiry of the time limit and there is no 2 year limitation period under section 10 of the Limitation Act 1980.
In The Celtic Pioneer the judge heard arguments on the third party claim last week. The claimant was employed by the defendant and was seconded to another organisation. Whilst with that organisation she was injured on a boat trip. Her (former) solicitors missed the 2 year limitation period against the boat company and she sued the defendant (a strategic health authority). The defendant sought to bring in the carrier which successfully struck out the defendant’s claim on the basis that the cause of action was extinguished by Article 16 of the Athens Convention. The appeal was heard last week.
The twist is that Article 16 is couched in the language of being a ‘Time-bar’ to an ‘action being brought’ which contrasts starkly with the equivalent provisions of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions which refer to the cause of action being ‘extinguished’. The defendant argued that regardless of the language of a ‘time-bar’, Article 16 extinguishes the cause of action on the expiry of the 2 year limitation period.
Claimants may miss the 2 year time limit but there is the potential that this judgment will catch out defendants wanting to bring third party proceedings and not realising that they must also bring their claims within 2 years of the accident. Indeed the same logic would apply to other international conventions given the force of law in the UK. Watch this space for the result...
(John Ross QC and Ian Miller were counsel for the Appellant in The Celtic Pioneer).
*The limitation period may technically be suspended or interrupted up to a limit of 3 years under Article 16.3 or extended by agreement under Article 16.4F
Photograph: Ian Britton FreeFoto.com

The European Commission has today announced proposals to extend air passenger rights. If approved by member states and the European Parliament, the measures will come into force in 2015.
The new measures would include:
Clarifying the meaning of ‘extraordinary circumstances’;
Requiring airlines to re-route passengers who have been delayed by more than 12 hours, using other air carriers if they cannot do so themselves;
Care requirements for planes delayed on the runway; and
Requiring airlines to allow passengers to disembark and to provide reimbursements, if the plane has sat on the runway for more than 5 hours.

In McDonagh v Ryanair (C-12/11) the European Court of Justice concluded that Ryanair were not entitled to treat the Icelandic Ash Cloud as a situation of ‘super-extraordinary circumstances’, thereby entitling them not to provide any care and assistance at all to their passengers under Article 9 of EC Regulation 261/2004.
However, before the Court was able even to consider the substantive argument about extraordinary circumstances, it had to deal with the Council of Europe’s contention that the claim made by Ms McDonagh was ‘inadmissible’. By this, it meant that the Claimant could not bring a claim, before her national courts, to recover the cost of the expenses that she had incurred in providing the care, assistance and accommodation that Ryanair should have provided her in the first place. In effect, the argument was that a breach of the Regulations is not actionable.
The Court was not persuaded by this argument. It is worth reproducing its reasoning on the point, in full:
20. The Court has already had occasion to explain that, when an air carrier fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, an air passenger is justified in claiming a right to compensation on the basis of the factors set out in those provisions (see, to that effect, Case C‑83/10 Sousa Rodríguez and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 44) and that such a claim cannot be understood as seeking damages, by way of redress on an individual basis, for the harm resulting from the cancellation of the flight concerned in the conditions laid down, inter alia, in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, Sousa Rodríguez and Others, paragraph 38).
21 A claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings seeks to obtain, from the air carrier, equivalent compliance with its obligation to provide care arising from Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, an obligation which, it should be recalled, operates at an earlier stage than the system laid down by the Montreal Convention (see Case C‑549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I‑11061, paragraph 32, and Joined Cases C‑581/10 and C‑629/10 Nelson and Others [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 57).
22 The fact, noted in this connection by the Council, that each Member State designates a body responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 261/2004 which, where appropriate, takes the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected and which each passenger may complain to about an alleged infringement of that regulation, in accordance with Article 16 of the regulation, is not such as to affect the right of a passenger to such reimbursement.
23 Article 16 cannot be interpreted as allowing only national bodies responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 261/2004 to sanction the failure of air carriers to comply with their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of that regulation to provide care.
Contrast Graham v Thomas Cook Airlines (2012) EWCA Civ 1355, in which the Claimant sought to bring a claim for damages for a breach of Article 8 of the EC Regulations (the Defendant having failed to provide her with a choice between reimbursement and rerouting). Lord Justice Toulson held that the regulation “does not confer a right to compensation for breach of article 8”, relying upon the fact that Civil Aviation Regulations (which provide for criminal enforcement mechanisms through the CAA in respect of a breach of the EC Regulations) “do not purport to impose on a carrier a statutory duty for breach of which an action for damages may be brought”. Somewhat more cryptically, however, he went on to state that “Insofar as there is a breach of article 8, the remedies for that breach are those set out in Article 8”.
It seems to me, therefore that the position is now as follows:
1. A passenger who is denied their rights under the Regulations (be it the right to fixed compensation, or care and assistance) can bring a claim in the County Courts to enforce the Regulations and compel the carrier to comply with them. Where the passenger has incurred individual expenses because of the failure of the carrier to provide care and assistance, the passenger’s remedy is an award of compensation equivalent to the reasonable cost of those expenses. Such an award is not, however, characterized as ‘damages’ (and so is not incompatible with the Montreal Convention). Instead, as Advocate General Geelhoed put it in the IATA case: “Such a claim evidently is aimed at forcing air carriers to comply with their obligations, irrespective of whether a passenger has suffered damages as a result of this non-compliance. In other words, the object of the action and the obligations of a carrier is identical’
2. However, a passenger cannot use the Regulations as a spring board for claiming damages for consequential loss which go beyond the obligations (in terms of care, assistance etc) that the carrier was required to provide under the Regulations. For example, a passenger whose flight is delayed and who suffers individual loss of earnings will be forced to bring a claim under the Montreal Convention, or at common law, as the case may be.